|
to accommodate the buffer and removing lots along the ridge line. He noted that additional homes in the
<br />area will increase tim hazards. He suggested 42 lots for the development, some of the split pad lots
<br />being changed to flat pad, height of homes adjacent to Ventana Hills being no higher than 20 feet, and
<br />mom single-story homes throughout development. He expressed concern with the trail due to the safety
<br />hazards and invasion of privacy to existing residences, and opposed any future public use of open space
<br />and trail. He believes that 52-foot wide streets in the development is too wide, that lights should be
<br />utilized on one side of street, and that staff should work with neighbors to decide the type of fencing to
<br />be utilized around homes and in open space. He commented on the overcrowding at schools and
<br />suggested that the development be built contingent on schools being opened. He further suggested that
<br />erosion problems be addressed and repaired at the creek, rather than just studied, that a mix of 15-gallon
<br />and 24-inch box size trees should be planted in the buffer, no construction on Saturday, no construction
<br />access from Independence Drive, and dust mitigation and clean up.
<br />
<br />Mitch Mehman, 1153 Lund Ranch Road, noted that a lot of issues had been resolved, but expressed
<br />concern with the density of project. He requested that homes be removed from the ridge to allow
<br />visibility of rural views and allowance of wildlife corridors. He expressed support with removal of lots,
<br />30, 31, 36, 37, and 38 to create the green belt and lots 26, 27, 28, and 29 to preserve the ridge line. He
<br />expressed concern with development of a trail due to privacy issues and suggested a rural horse fence
<br />around buffer. He noted that there were safety issues at the creek due to erosion. He suggested that the
<br />fence be built prior to construction to eliminate trespassing from transient construction crews into
<br />existing backyards. He further expressed concern with the placement of windows in homes to protect
<br />privacy in neighboring homes and suggested that the developer provide plans showing placement of
<br />windows. He suggested providing landscaping at the beginning of the project to allow for tree growth,
<br />no Saturday or Sunday construction, no construction access through Independence Drive, decrease in the
<br />width of roads in the project and use minimal street lighting, 30 percent FAR, elimination of 150-square
<br />foot accessory structures, over the FAR maximum, lots 30 and 31 being eliminated from the plan, and if
<br />not eliminated, being single-story dwellings to reduce visual impacts, and creek and fallen tree
<br />stabilization. He requested a site specific report on erosion mitigation performed by outside personnel,
<br />elimination of the gravel road, and that issues of drainage and flood control be addressed. He noted that
<br />the City is not responsible for the developer's profitability and that 48 lots is adequate profit. Further, he
<br />believes that growth management should be on a first come/first serve basis. He stated he was not in
<br />support of the golf course due to the number of golf courses in the area, and that the quality of life in
<br />Pleasanton should include ample schools for children, reasonable traffic conditions, and maintenance of
<br />open space and parks.
<br />
<br />Discussion ensued relating to creek bed erosion and loitering in the area, golf course plans, update on the
<br />San Francisco school property site, and the new school being at full capacity when opened. Mr. Iserson
<br />clarified that the actual paved width of the road in the development will be 32 feet, within a 50 foot
<br />right-of-way, including planted strips, sidewalks, and curbs. Further, Mr. Iserson clarified that the creek
<br />erosion study would come before the Commission at public heatings at the tentative map stage with a
<br />recommended course of action for erosion mitigation.
<br />
<br />Tom McCormick, 1129 Lund Ranch Road, expressed concern with the density of project and amenities
<br />not being significant enough to receive higher density bonuses. He noted that 1.3 housing units per acre
<br />
<br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 May 12, 1999
<br />
<br />
<br />
|